% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Walter:287260,
author = {A. Walter$^*$ and P. Hoegen-Saßmannshausen$^*$ and G.
Stanic$^*$ and J. P. Rodrigues$^*$ and S. Adeberg and O.
Jäkel$^*$ and M. Frank and K. Giske$^*$},
title = {{S}egmentation of 71 {A}natomical {S}tructures {N}ecessary
for the {E}valuation of {G}uideline-{C}onforming {C}linical
{T}arget {V}olumes in {H}ead and {N}eck {C}ancers.},
journal = {Cancers},
volume = {16},
number = {2},
issn = {2072-6694},
address = {Basel},
publisher = {MDPI},
reportid = {DKFZ-2024-00192},
pages = {415},
year = {2024},
note = {#EA:E040#LA:E040#},
abstract = {The delineation of the clinical target volumes (CTVs) for
radiation therapy is time-consuming, requires intensive
training and shows high inter-observer variability.
Supervised deep-learning methods depend heavily on
consistent training data; thus, State-of-the-Art research
focuses on making CTV labels more homogeneous and strictly
bounding them to current standards. International consensus
expert guidelines standardize CTV delineation by
conditioning the extension of the clinical target volume on
the surrounding anatomical structures. Training strategies
that directly follow the construction rules given in the
expert guidelines or the possibility of quantifying the
conformance of manually drawn contours to the guidelines are
still missing. Seventy-one anatomical structures that are
relevant to CTV delineation in head- and neck-cancer
patients, according to the expert guidelines, were segmented
on 104 computed tomography scans, to assess the possibility
of automating their segmentation by State-of-the-Art deep
learning methods. All 71 anatomical structures were
subdivided into three subsets of non-overlapping structures,
and a 3D nnU-Net model with five-fold cross-validation was
trained for each subset, to automatically segment the
structures on planning computed tomography scans. We report
the DICE, Hausdorff distance and surface DICE for 71 + 5
anatomical structures, for most of which no previous
segmentation accuracies have been reported. For those
structures for which prediction values have been reported,
our segmentation accuracy matched or exceeded the reported
values. The predictions from our models were always better
than those predicted by the TotalSegmentator. The sDICE with
2 mm margin was larger than $80\%$ for almost all the
structures. Individual structures with decreased
segmentation accuracy are analyzed and discussed with
respect to their impact on the CTV delineation following the
expert guidelines. No deviation is expected to affect the
rule-based automation of the CTV delineation.},
keywords = {anatomical structures (Other) / automatic segmentation
(Other) / clinical target volume delineation (Other) /
expert guidelines (Other) / head and neck cancer (Other) /
lymph-node-level segmentation (Other) / multi-label
segmentation (Other)},
cin = {E040 / E050},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)E050-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:38254904},
doi = {10.3390/cancers16020415},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/287260},
}